The reviewers at NSF Systematic Biology panel in 1990 ("rating: Do Not Fund") who were then courageously overruled by program director William
Moore.

NSF Systematic Biology Panel, 1992 ("rating: Do Not Fund")

1992 Genetics Study Section of NIH ("rating: 53rd percentile")

The reviewers at NSF Population Biology in early 2003 who gave my proposal too anemic a rating: ("The work has the potential to define the field for many years to come .... All agreed that the proposal is somewhat vague. There was also some concern that the proposed work is too ambitious.")

The reviewers at the Genetics Study Section of the NIH in early 2004 who said such nice things about my proposal ("One is likely to look back in 20 years and marvel that these questions were not actively pursued by more theoreticians" and "The first inclination is to give this PI all the money he wants!"), but then proceeded to give my proposal a 30.2 percentile rating. Next time you can tone down the praise as long as you improve the ratings, OK? [Perhaps they listened to this. The next time through, a different panel
(the new Genetic Diversity study section), said nice but more restrained
things while giving a very high rating to the proposal]

The NIH program on Continued Development and Maintenance of Software,
2008 who rated my proposal for continued development of PHYLIP
at a percentile of 50.6 ("While PHYLIP is much acclaimed for its impact
over the years, the application is not considered significant given the state
of the art today and what is being proposed. The application is deficient in a
rigorous comparative analysis of other tools and the Panel comments on the lack
of software engineering expertise. Overall, the application is considered
average in its present form despite the excellence of the investigator who is
highly respected.") There's one more NIH program to avoid -- they
don't seem to fund continued development and maintenance of software. I wonder
-- when we look back a few years from now, will we find that the computer
programs which they did support ended up getting more use than PHYLIP?

The NSF Assembling the Tree Of Life (AToL) Spring 2008 Advisory Panel
who decided that a grant proposal by me and Fred Bookstein to develop
Brownian Motion models for morphological characters, and methods of applying
them to fossil data and to use morphometrics, was Meritorious but was
Not Fundable.
("All of the panelists and reviewers were enthusiastic about the goals, and expressed great respect for the previous work of the investigators. However,
there were significant weaknesses in the proposal would have been enhanced by
some proof-of-concept or other preliminary results or examples, more specific
information regarding approaches to statistical issues, and a better overall
integration of the two main components of the proposal. An additional team
member providing paleobiological/stratigraphic expertise would enhance the
project's viability. Finally, the panel believes that education and outreach
should be addressed more explicitly.") I guess the thousands of
distributions of PHYLIP, the many lectures and articles I have written on
phylogenies over the years, weren't "outreach".

The NSF Assembling the Tree of Life (AToL) Spring 2009 Advisory Panel,
who decided that the revised grant proposal by me and Fred Bookstein was
once again Meritorious but Not Fundable. Here is part of the panel
summary statement:

CRITERION I Intellectual Merit

Intellectual Strengths: The panel was very enthusiastic about the need for new
programs that would advance model-based approaches to evaluating morphology for
phylogenetic analysis. Should these methods be developed, they could also be
applied to giving a direct role to morphology in tree building and to providing
better tools for molecular dating.

Intellectual Weaknesses: No taxonomic test cases were identified for the new
method. Members of the panel expressed concerns that morphometrics does not
currently play a significant role in large scale morphological systematics,
thus it was not clear why expanded funding for morphometrics was a priority.

CRITERION II Broader Impact

Broader Impact Strengths:
The panel recognizes the important contributions that the PIs have made both in
theory and in tool development, and that this constitutes a form of broader
impact that may continue in the future.

Broader Impact Weaknesses: No specific plans were given to train younger
investigators or to provide significant outreach to the public or
non-university educators.

SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATION

The PIs propose to develop software that integrates molecular phylogenetics and
morphometrics. They predict that development of this software will enhance the
role of morphology in systematics because it will allow morphology to be
approached with model-based algorithms. The panel was unanimously enthusiastic
about the need to expand model-based approaches to the investigation of
morphology; however, there was not agreement that the proposed approach using
morphometrics was likely to contribute to higher level phylogenetic questions.

That's the last time I try to go to NSF AToL for money -- they clearly do not
fund development of methods (or understand how it is done).

In 2010 Fred and I applied once more to the NSF Systematics and
Biodiversity Program. Once again the reviewers trashed the grant proposal.
They rated it Not Competitive. (I will publish the summary here soon).
This time the program chair, Maureen Kearney, courageously overruled them
and we got the money.

A preproposal by us for continued work in 2014 failed to get a
strong enough rating to enable us to make another application. Through most
of 2014 we had a dribble of no-cost extension
money, left over from the grant that was awarded in 2010, being spent for part
of our salaries. This ended at the end of October, 2014. Currently I
have no grant funding.

A few thoughts about the above list:

Does all this “outreach” stuff mean I have to devote time
to giving workshops to mystified culinary arts students? These grants are
for development of advanced methods, and briefing “the public or
non-university educators” about those methods would seem to be a waste
of time -- though
I do spend some effort on fighting creationists and Intelligent Design
advocates, but I don't bring up these methods in doing so.

Does all this “preliminary examples” stuff mean that we have
to have methods completed before applying for money to develop them?

Do all the calls for a larger training component or bringing a
paleontologist on board mean that they will look favorably on a 25-50%
expansion of the proposal budget? Who's kidding who?

Hero Medals for standing up for us at considerable personal risk to

William
Moore, NSF and Wayne State University. In 1990 as head of
the NSF program funding systematics, he actually overruled his
panel, which had recommended that a grant of mine positively
not be funded, and awarded the grant.

Maureen Kearney, program head of NSF Systematics and Biodoversity.
On the 20th anniversary of Bill Moore's brave action, she did the same.
My thanks to her for sticking out her neck and acting on her convictions.

David Maddison
(if PHYLIP is better in any ways than their programs, it's because they
were generous in sharing their techniques).

Inspiration to keep going came from

Cladistics magazine, for endless negative reviews and
disparaging comments. If they liked it I'd worry.

(I do note that the Hennig Society page for Cladistics includes a link
for most-cited papers. The list is only of recent papers. My 1989 note in
Cladistics describing PHYLIP, on page 164 of volume 5,
is in fact the most cited paper ever
in that journal, responsible for at least 15% of all citations to
the journal, and making me the most-cited-ever author in that journal!
You'd think they'd like me.)

And many thanks to about 300 users for complaints, suggestions, bug fixes, and
much more.